Why are victim-less crimes illegal?

Yes but is that what's best for you? Kind of a moral dilemma really, because you should be able to say what's best for yourself, but you could be wrong.

My previous post was flaved, after smoking a sig and thinking about it for awhile
But in any case, to make something illegal because it can harm you just isn't right.

I would have to say it is in opposition to the sense of morality that the government forces on us. Do you believe that you are really free? So then how is posioning yourself with alcohol or tabacco any different from illegal drugs? It is not except for the massive 'acceptible' money maker they have become.

I don't believe we're free at all, it's impossible; the moment you want a system which is one of control and order, you have to give up your freedom.

I would expect some do and some don't. Keep in mind that making prostitution
legal is not the same as endorsing it. The point is that people should be able
to have a choice. The truth is they already are making these choices, the
issue I have is that they are considered criminals. In my opinion they are
not criminals the laws are wrong and need to be changed.



Yea, just like now that alcohol is legal everyone is drunk all the time.



The government does not make something against the law just because it
is harmful. Look at the pollution automobiles are filling the air with. So with
your logic they should be illegal?

The point is that activity that does not pose a significant risk to society
should not be made illegal. Doing so only creates crime and offers little
to nothing in return. (unless you count the money law enforcement makes
on the illegal activities)

TruthCanHurt, you're right drugs are not much different than someone who eats too much. I am very very much in favor of expanding the "sin" tax to fatty unhealthy foods and/or giving tax breaks/insurance cuts or credits for healthier foods. It is upsetting to me, for example that my fat-free cholesterol-free foods cost 3x or 4x more than that of their unhealthy equivalents, so let's reverse that not only for myself (I pay the extra anyway) but instead make the unhealthy foods cost 3x or 4x more than the healthy ones. Reverse the prices and thus volume flow towards the healthy and charge more for the people that can actually taste a difference and don't mind becoming unhealthy fatties.

Take an Administration of Justice course, okay? A crime isn't a crime unless it fits a very TIGHT definition. If your actions are legal, no crime has been commited. ON THE OTHER HAND if your actions are illegal, it will fall into this tight definition. If you go to your local college Law Library and sit down with a copy of your local penal code, it will define a crime.

Actually, the real "victimless crimes" seem to be Traffic laws. Why is it STILL illegal to run a red light, when it's Three O'Clock AM and there isn't another car within a hundred miles?

This is quite a bit off topic since I attempting to discuss the injustice in the
laws on the books that target activity where no one is harmed in a significant
way.

Rather than attempting to TAX unhealthy foods it would make more sense
to give healthy people discounts on health insurance.



You must be eating pre-prepared packaged foods? I don't feel that
fresh fruits and vegetables (which are about the best stuff you can eat)
are overpriced. They do require more effort to prepare, however.

Or perhaps you could attempt to participate in a discussion thread and
address the topic of interest rather than picking apart the semantics of
the subject and whether or not it fits a legal definition. Okay?

Just for Toelint: For the sake of this discussion we will use the following
definition of 'crime' from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

crime n.

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

" Why are victim-less crimes illegal? Two that come to mind are:
Prostitution and Soft Drugs (Marijuana)"

Okay, I've thought of another one. What about freedom of speech? It seems that speech is very dangerous these days. Who is the victim here?

Do you think it is possible that you could be considered a "Terrorist" because of your speech? That seems to be the case today.

I have been without television for about 3 years now. I originally did it for my kids. I saw and recognized what it was doing to them. Too bad I waited so long.

I do see it though. TV that is. You see I'm an engineer that helps design new television systems. So I have a TV on my desk at work with cable TV. I also have my own private channels at work.

I never listen to the sound though. Not unless I need to for some reason. I do have the closed caption running (man those typest cant spel). So I get the jest of what is being said.

Unlike you User4574, I almost always watch, or in my case, have "on" the news. What they play is so mind numbing boring that it doesn't distract me while I'm working. Headline News by CNN is my most tuned channel. They repeat the same stories every 15 to 30 minutes. They stories they play typically have very little "news" value. It is either propaganda or the "spectacle of the day".

Because people could put them in Childrens cookies then we'll have stoned 5 year olds?

Haha only joking. This thread reminds me of Crackerjack.